Problems of the Liaohai Shushe printed edition of Yu Deukgong’s Yondae Jaeyu Lok in the Light of the Other Editions of the Work
117 , 2016-12
In this article, the author examines the interrelationship between the various versions of Yondae Jaeyu Lok 燕臺再游録, Yu Deukgong’s 柳得恭 account of the Korean tributary mission to Beijing in 1778, in order to clarify problems in the text of its only printed edition, which was included in the series Liaohai Shushe 遼海叢書 compiled by the Chinese historian Jin Yufu 金毓黻. Although Yondae Jaeyu Lok is widely familiar to historians owing to its inclusion in Liaohai Shushe and thus has been utilized by many of them, there are obvious problems due to the Liaohai Shushe edition’s inordinately large number of ideographic errors and missing characters. Jin Yufu published Liaohai Shushe while he was working in Manchukuo as the assistant director of the National Fengtian Library 国立奉天図書館. The series edition of Yondae Jaeyu Lok was based on an abridged manuscript given to Jin by Korean Buddhist scholar Kwon Sangro 権相老. The author’s comparison of the text of the Liaohai Shushe edition with the other extant manuscripts of Yondae Jaeyu Lok, including a manuscript written by Yu Deukgong himself, shows a close relationship between the Liaohai Shushe edition and the manuscript preserved at National Taiwan Normal University, due to their common ideographic errors, missing characters, and character phrases in reverse order. Due to the fact that the National Taiwan Normal University manuscript bears the bookplate of a person to whom Jin Yufu temporarily entrusted his book collection in order to protect it from harm during the war, it is highly probable that this manuscript is the one which Jin Yufu utilized in compiling Liaohai Shushe. Characteristics peculiar to the text of the Liaohai Shushe edition include 1) Japan being referred to with the characters 日本, in contrast to 倭 (implying subservience) in the other manuscripts and 2) lacking the section containing dialogue referring to the subordination of the Kingdom of Ryukyu to Japan. The author is the opinion that such alterations in terminology and abridgements stemmed in the case of 1) from Jin Yufu’s position as the assistant director of the National Fengtian University Library, a status necessitating sensitivity towards Japanese interests, and in the case of 2), Jin Yufu’s judgment of the passage as too controversial in light of the traditional Chinese assertion of its historical suzerainty over Ryukyu.